Robert Treat wrote: > The revisionism was that of "remarkable failure". That was our shortest > release cycle in the modern era. And it didn't have the advantage of the > commitfest process. > > But I think what is important here is to recognize why it didn't work. Once > again we ended up with large, complex features (HOT, tsearch) that people > didn't want to wait 14 months to see if they missed the 8.3 release. And yes, > most of these same arguements were raised then... "full text search is killer > feature", "whole applications are waiting for in-core full text search", "hot > will give allow existing customers to use postgres on a whole new > level", "not fair to push back patches so long when developers followed the > rules", "sponsors wont want to pay for features they wont see for > years", "developers dont want to wait so long to see features committed", and > on and on...
I think the big reminder for me from above is that we will always have big stuff that doesn't make a certain major release, and trying to circumvent our existing process is usually a mistake. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers